There is a known treaty about full banning nuclear tests, from 1996. Many states have signed it, but not all ratified. I can understand, why, for example, DPRK haven't signed it - it is critical for their national security.

We all know, that US foreign politics is oriented towards peace, and I remember some claims about fully banning nuclear weapons (from Obama times).

But why has the US not ratified it, if so? Were there some public claims about origin of this non-ratification?

  • 7
    Wikipedia lists no less than six reasons that the US has supposedly given for not ratifying the treaty, but only lists a single source for the entire list. Given the discussions we've had recently about source quality, I don't feel comfortable making an answer out of it, but felt it was worth pointing out. – F1Krazy Sep 20 '19 at 13:06
  • 3
    I've not voted on this question, but if you're keen to avoid people responding emotionally, that second paragraph could do with a re-think. – ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere Sep 20 '19 at 13:27
  • @F1Krazy, accepted! Really missed it - I mostly read about it in Russian, than open english wiki and missed those points. Close! – user2501323 Sep 20 '19 at 13:29
  • 2
    @F1Krazy: the source (CRS) is quite reliable for the official US position, but what is questionable is that it is from 2005; lots of water under bridge since then. The position might have changed. I don't think this questions should be closed just because that link was provided. – Fizz Sep 20 '19 at 17:23
  • 2
    @motoDrizzt Knowing OP, I'm guessing that was meant to be sarcastic. – F1Krazy Sep 21 '19 at 7:41

The US has a well-known record for talking peace and love, but refusing to commit to anything which would place restrictions on its actions. For example, there is a treaty on maritime conventions that the US has not signed. The US is unwilling to submit to judgments by the ICC. There are various climate change agreements the US has bailed on.

So why this treaty? Well, the US is one of the few countries with a huge nuclear arsenal. And the US wants to be able to do whatever it wants with those nukes.

|improve this answer|||||
  • Please try to elaborate with some references. This seems on track to be a good answer, but I'd dispute the last answer by saying the US did work on disarmament, e. g. through new START. – JJ for Transparency and Monica Sep 22 '19 at 0:56

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .